Not really.

Post #13,962 by addison 10/18/01 11:02:48 AM Reply	Not really. The longest term _most_ humans are capable of imagining is 80-90 years nowadays - the span of human life. Check into Japanese history for some counters to that. They have a culture that is much more longer oriented than we are. Actually, the biggest problem is - children. Those with children must provide for them, so the time frame shifts to more immediate concerns. We are very short-sighted. But look at the hatred between clans in the middle east, in Bosnia.. hatreds that go back to before anybody in them now was alive. Hell, in Serbia/Bosnia, etc. almost everybody alive was forced to get along with, so there weren't any ability to really hate anybody, other than orally, for 50 years - so all of the soldiers and such fighting in the war never knew why they were doing it. People do think short term. If you're hungry, and have no food, you're not inclined to think about the long term. Its easier if you have food, and can remove some of the worries, then you can worry more long-term. That doesn't mean nobody can - just many don't. But there is a difference between can and can't. I'm not sure what exception you're referring to. Addison
Post #13,964 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 11:12:38 AM 10/18/01 11:13:26 AM Reply	Re: Not really. Could you tell me more about Japanese culture before I go off on the search of my own? Are we talking sages and rulers or plain people? As to the children... I've seem some people who don't care about them.Many others only comsider themselves reponcible for children up to a point. In any case, even with children, "if I can get away with it and send them to a better college so that they can get away with even more crap - perfect!" The other example you give... If I understand you correctly, you think that one does not need a long term view into the future benefits/problem is a basis for morale. What does it have to do with a long memory of past hatred? Homo Sapiens is always ready to hate, with or without past for an excuse. How does that bear on the origins of morality? Oops, forgot to mention this again. I wonder where your long-term views come from. Edited by Arkadiy Oct. 18, 2001, 11:13:26 AM EDT Expand All History
Post #13,966 by addison 10/18/01 11:22:31 AM Reply	Not an expert. I'd suspect Inthane probably has a lot more to say about that than I do, for instance. But traditionally, the Japanese culture is very forward-looking. People start projects that they won't be able to finish. People maintain things the way they always have been, and the next generation is assumed to take up the task when they're finished. Are we talking sages and rulers or plain people? As I understand it, the culture, the people. As to the children... I've seem some people who don't care about them. I think that's a more modern issue. Yes, some people do, but in general, when you have kids, you provide for them. For instance, I have no kids. I could go do just about anything, without real regard for anybody else... Quit my job and move to alaska and sell deep freezes. But if I have a kid, then that's not as feasible... because I've got to feed/clothe/provide for the kid.. Its a more immediate concern.. and as you might note - kids have VERY Short Term Outlooks. :) you think that one does not need a long term view into the future benefits/problem is a basis for morale. I think you have that backward. One does need a long term view for morals. That's what I was saying. If you look at things in the Long Term, then you say "I need to turn the other cheek". "Killing people to get their stuff is bad". For some examples. Homo Sapiens is always ready to hate, with or without past for an excuse. How does that bear on the origins of morality? That's not true. Hate is passed down. Children know nothing of hate. What's that song.. "Watermelon Wine?".. "Bless the children, for they're too young to hate"? Something like that. Hate has to be explained. And then the converse is also evident - "If we go over and knock them over the head, they'll come over here and knock US over the head, and then we gotta go back over there and....." "What happens if we just say we're sorry, and we won't do it anymore? Then we all can get along, and go get food, rather than worrying about each other?" Hate does require an excuse. Try and find someone who hates who does so without an ostensible reason. They always have one, don't they? No matter how silly. That's what I was saying - morals are _fairly_ consistant across the world, no matter the religion. Religions are more derived from morals, than the other way around. Addison
Post #13,968 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 11:47:52 AM Reply	Re: Not an expert. >>>>>>> But traditionally, the Japanese culture is very forward-looking. People start projects that they won't be able to finish. People maintain things the way they always have been, and the next generation is assumed to take up the task when they're finished. <<<<<<< Don't you think the 2 sentences above are somewhat contradictory? Not all the way, just a little. I think you are mixing up good memory/tradition with forward-looking. Peole start things because it's what their fathers did, and just as they carry on the fathers' deeds, they hope that their sons will carry on their deeds. That is all good and well, but it applies to highway robbery as nicely as to temple buildings. I wonder if there are dynasties of highway robbers in Japan. >>>>>>>>>>> For instance, I have no kids. I could go do just about anything, without real regard for anybody else... Quit my job and move to alaska and sell deep freezes. But if I have a kid, then that's not as feasible... because I've got to feed/clothe/provide for the kid.. Its a more immediate concern.. and as you might note - kids have VERY Short Term Outlooks. :) <<<<<<<<<<< You are mixing practicality and morals. It's not practical for you to "move to Alaska and sell deep freezes". But there is nothing inherently amoral in it, even if you have kids. But you can also become a politician and sell "access" left and right. That will be far better as far as "providing" goes. It will also be immoral (I hope). Children usually (under our normal pampered Western circumstances) don't see anything worth hating till they are rather old (3 years? 4 years? 5 may be?). I think, as soon as there is something worth hating (in their opinion), kids know how to do it instinctively. >>>>>>>>>>>> you think that one does not need a long term view into the future benefits/problem is a basis for morale. I think you have that backward. One does need a long term view for morals. <<<<<<<<<<< I indeed do have that bacwards. I have no idea how this "not" crept in there :) >>>>>>>>>> Hate does require an excuse. Try and find someone who hates who does so without an ostensible reason. They always have one, don't they? No matter how silly. <<<<<<<<<< Indeed. No matter how silly. And the excuse does not have to be historical. That's all I am saying. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's what I was saying - morals are _fairly_ consistant across the world, no matter the religion. Religions are more derived from morals, than the other way around. <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Well, I am not saying that morals are derived from religions. I am saying something that is more risky: morals and religions both come from one source (guess what source I mean? 3 tries, first 2 don't count :) I am also saying that long memory is irrelevant to morals, and long-term perspective into future is unsufficient to explain them. The long-term incourages amoral actions just as it encourages moral ones. "If I keep opressing people just as hard as I am doing now, I'll go on doing it indefinitely, and I'll leave my kids a good business". "If I steal enough, no one will get at me, ever".
Post #13,971 by addison 10/18/01 12:43:21 PM Reply	Re: Not an expert. Don't you think the 2 sentences above are somewhat contradictory? Not all the way, just a little. Not without a contextual shift (that I'm unaware of). Peole start things because it's what their fathers did, and just as they carry on the fathers' deeds, they hope that their sons will carry on their deeds. That is all good and well, but it applies to highway robbery as nicely as to temple buildings. I wonder if there are dynasties of highway robbers in Japan. That's still planning for the future. The plan extends past a human lifespan. Why that's so, I would think, differs. Something that I know is a problem is spending - the Japanese save so much of their income that they don't spend as much as the government would like them to. They save, because of the long-range outlook. If I don't use it, my children will. Not saying its good or bad, merely that its an example of a culture that has/did value planning more than one lifetime. (And how it did that is another topic). You are mixing practicality and morals. It's not practical for you to "move to Alaska and sell deep freezes". But there is nothing inherently amoral in it, even if you have kids. Well, I wasn't trying to mix the two. I was comparing the ability to plan long-term, and that having children immediately forces more short-term focus. The morality of such wasn't my issue, just the example of short-term thnking versus long-term thinking, and how they relate to morals and how morals are shaped. Sometimes, for a counter, children result in longer focuses. I'm sure some readers here have college funds, or trust funds they expect their children to inherit. Sometimes people's morals are shaped by how their children will be affected. Well, I am not saying that morals are derived from religions. I am saying something that is more risky: morals and religions both come from one source (guess what source I mean? 3 tries, first 2 don't count :) Not sure what you mean. If you mean that its from a diety, then the evidence for that is rather against you - note the vast differences in morals around the world. I am also saying that long memory is irrelevant to morals, and long-term perspective into future is unsufficient to explain them. You'll have to elaborate on this. Morals are how people can coexist in a society. Without morals, you have anarchy. If you have anarchy, its not long before some semblance of morals starts to reexert itself - for self preservation. The long-term incourages amoral actions just as it encourages moral ones. "If I keep opressing people just as hard as I am doing now, I'll go on doing it indefinitely, and I'll leave my kids a good business". "If I steal enough, no one will get at me, ever". In your first example, it requires power in the first place. And you might note - power, the powerful, leaders, rulers, are among the most AMORAL of people. Because they can make decisions without (they think) ramifications. The concept of morality needs to get a footnote for that discussion, its another sort of problem. For the short discussion, you must be in control for oppression. And actually, if you look at how religion has been used to oppress people, keep them from rising up, you'll see that often the moral lessons are designed/changed/reinforced for people to submit and not change the system. Most monarchys are build on a concept of divine blood. That they are the anointed of (whatever) god. This is true for all the monarchies I can think of. England, France, Japan, China, and I think? the Aztec. Widely differing morals, in some ways, but very similar in others. And even in areas where there weren't hereditary (divinely inspired) monarchs, many of the same moral codes you find to be the same. Don't kill. Don't Steal. Why? Because those are concepts that allow people to have a society. If you have random killings, and everything you own is likely to be stolen, you don't have a society. (And notice the breakdown as some areas in the world become like that). Its those similiarities that keep coming up, that we can definately find in old civilizations, that the evidence points to in "prehistoric" humans, that they lived together, and had similar "morals" for co-existance. Addison
Post #13,984 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 1:33:23 PM Reply	Re: Not an expert. >>>>>>>> Don't you think the 2 sentences above are somewhat contradictory? Not all the way, just a little. Not without a contextual shift (that I'm unaware of). <<<<<<<<<< I meant, it's hard to be both forward-looking and and traditional at the same time. Not impossible, but hard. And harder for entire cultures than for specific persons. You keep trying to convince me that some people do indeed think farther ahead than others. I am not disputing that (although you'll have hard time convincing me that _most_ people think more than a few years in advance). I am just saying that such thinking may encurage all sorts of behaviors. It all depends on how bad or good (moral/amoral, for this discussion) the thinker is. Yes, I think we have been created (I think by a diety, you may think by evolution - a long discussion) with some sort of build-in moral compass. Now, you say: > "note the vast differences in morals around the world" and a bit later: > "Its those similiarities that keep coming up, > that we can definately find in old civilizations, > that the evidence points to in "prehistoric" humans, > that they lived together, and had similar "morals" > for co-existance." I agree with your second take. I just don't see how it follows that morals are just logical consequences from long-range predictions. Apparently, something like "don't kill, except in self-defence" and "don't steal from your neighbor" existed before the structure of society (that allows long-range preidctions) was formed. Apparently, you say that those sentiments were precondition for society. (btw, note that I don't say "don't kill", "don't steal". Those absolutes took time to form as people slowly included more and more "others" into the small circle of "neighbors") >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I am also saying that long memory is irrelevant to morals, and long-term perspective into future is unsufficient to explain them. You'll have to elaborate on this. Morals are how people can coexist in a society. Without morals, you have anarchy. If you have anarchy, its not long before some semblance of morals starts to reexert itself - for self preservation. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Well, technically, we have anarchy w/o governement. Not without morals. And therein lies our difference. You seem to think that people's morals are formed by logical reasoning on consequences of their acts. That's law and order, that's what governement enforces. I think that really moral people do the right thing even if all consequences, long- or short-term are against it. And I can't explain their reasoning. (btw, governements often provide bad consequences for good deeds). >>>>>>>>>>>> For the short discussion, you must be in control for oppression. And actually, if you look at how religion has been used to oppress people, keep them from rising up, you'll see that often the moral lessons are designed/changed/reinforced for people to submit and not change the system. Most monarchys are build on a concept of divine blood. That they are the anointed of (whatever) god. This is true for all the monarchies I can think of. England, France, Japan, China, and I think? the Aztec. Widely differing morals, in some ways, but very similar in others. <<<<<<<<<<<< Again, technically speaking, monarchy is more an obligation to protect and defend God's world than "divine blood". If a monarch does not fulfill his duties, he will be stripped of his privileges by divine hand (see the end of Saul, and Chines history comes to mind too.) This notion is present very strongly in Christianity, and I suspect Confucianism as well. (mind you I am no expert at all). But, less technically speaking, I am not saying that religion produced morals. The fact that religion has been used for oppression (and, to be fair, for revolutions agains tirants as well) has no bearing on my argument. I am just saying that morals cannot be explained by logic alone (although they can be inforced or perverted that way). There is more to being moral than just long-range prognosis.
Post #13,992 by addison 10/18/01 2:02:30 PM Reply	Re: Not an expert. I meant, it's hard to be both forward-looking and and traditional at the same time. Not impossible, but hard. And harder for entire cultures than for specific persons. Aha. I see what you mean, now, hadn't thought of it like that. I don't, right this second, see a problem with a "tradition" of looking forward, but I see what you were objecting to. Well, technically, we have anarchy w/o governement. Not without morals. What? :) No, without common guidelines we have anarchy. We aren't required to have a government to have a society, or a shared moral code. Just in order to have a society we must agree on at least the rough outline of said moral code. Government is a way of mandating a moral code, but its not a requirement (on a small set of subjects. And therein lies our difference. You seem to think that people's morals are formed by logical reasoning on consequences of their acts. Not people as individuals. People in the context of cultures, and generations of them. I think you're presuming I mean individuals. And things change, shift. Oh.. Let me see how this will do for an example. Take women. (please!). Some parts of the world (China and India spring to mind as recent examples) do not afford the "protection" to women that our society does. (the obvious exceptions to it are immoral, by our societies standard). In parts of those cultures, it is "too expensive" to have women, so they are abandoned or killed at birth - or treated almost as livestock - in some cases valued less than livestock. Completely 180 from how women are "supposed" to be treated in our culture, right? (aren't you Russian? I've heard that there's a big cultural issue there, too, but I don't know all the details, saw a TV report one time, and one Russian was talking about the vast difference, and said somethng to the effect that "A [Russian] man can love a woman, but he can't be nice to her"). But anyway. Thus we've got a difference in how cultures treat the same sex. What happens if say, a dread disease spreads over those areas that are overpopulated now? and.. Suddenly, there are more men than women? Wouldn't that almost immediately change the status, how women are treated? Wouldn't you say that the morality in that case has been influenced by the need for children? (And without women...). Whereas in overpopulated areas, women (especially adding in other cultural/moral codes, such as dowrys, etc) are less likely to be nurtured/desired? Again, technically speaking, monarchy is more an obligation to protect and defend God's world than "divine blood". That's not what has been said to sustain said monarchies. They all were 'ordained by God' to take the throne, and pass it down. I am just saying that morals cannot be explained by logic alone (although they can be inforced or perverted that way). There is more to being moral than just long-range prognosis. Ah. Well, no, they're not just logic, you're right. History, and logic, and culture, and other things factor in as well. What I was trying to say is that morals will come out, an many of them will be based in logic/long term forecasts, and those are the ones that tend to be "consistant" across the world. Addison
Post #13,998 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 2:31:45 PM Reply	More clear now. Ok, I think positions are better explained than before. You are talking about "morals" of entire people? Ouch. I think this is a misuse of term. For peoples you have statistically prevalent behavior patterns. For persons you have moral decisions. Peoples don't make decisions. May be governements do (rather, leaders do), but not people. With regard to women - having 4 wives might or might not be practical and/or beneficial to society. But adultery is amoral regardless. See the difference? And it does not matter is the law is lax or stric or equal. People (persons) know that it's wrong to sleep with another's husband/wife. With regard to anarchy: here is the definition - an\ufffdar\ufffdchy 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. I meant sence 1. Which one did you have in mind? >>>>>>>>> That's not what has been said to sustain said monarchies. They all were 'ordained by God' to take the throne, and pass it down. <<<<<<<<< That's what monarchs say. It may even be what bishops (ayatollas) say. But it's not necessarily what religion (church) says. But that's a different discussion. >>>>>>>> Well, no, they're not just logic, you're right. History, and logic, and culture, and other things factor in as well. <<<<<<<< And I keep thinking that those "other things" matter more in certain _personal_ decisions than all of the above combined.
Post #14,001 by addison 10/18/01 3:08:38 PM Reply	Re: More clear now. You are talking about "morals" of entire people? Yes, that was the context in which it was presented. We're discussing morals across people. The problem is its really something that's not defineable. Morals for 1 person aren't, either, but its a different problem. The best we can do is make approximations of understanding of individual's morals. So I'm talking of the "morals" of a culture, a society. By definition you have to have some shared morals to have either/both of those. 4 people can meet in America, and talk, and all of whom have some morals opposed to the others. But some morals will be the same. The idea of morality is one of those philisophical ones. Sometimes its by force you create/enforce morality. "I don't mind stealing from the Huge Store, but if I do, I'll get put in jail". (More often seen as "They won't mind, they're so big, this won't affect them"). But trying to drill down to the root as far as is possible, you get to "why are you doing what you're doing?" Why don't you want to be worried that anybody else on the street doesn't ascribe to your moral code that killing is wrong? After all, its possible that anybody you pass on the street doesn't. But its not very likely. But adultery is amoral regardless. See the difference? And it does not matter is the law is lax or stric or equal. People (persons) know that it's wrong to sleep with another's husband/wife. This is another case where "moral" is too strong of a word, there's too many sub categories to file that under. Some people are Ok with that. Some cultures, its quite normal. Others, its not. Even inside say a smaller subset, its still one of those "it depends" issues. With regard to anarchy: here is the definition - 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. I meant sence 1. Which one did you have in mind? 3. But it's not necessarily what religion (church) says. But that's a different discussion. It was [what they said] just a few hundred years ago. Until very very recently, in time scales. Addison
Post #14,005 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 3:29:46 PM Reply	End of discussion? OK, I think we can complete this discussion now. You were talking about morals of peoples (which I find a horrible misuse of the term, but that's irrelevant). I was talking about the sence of right and wrong "given" to an individual. How those 2 things interact is a whole another topic.
Post #14,008 by addison 10/18/01 3:34:58 PM Reply	In a sense. Because its a much bigger discussion than this. :) Addison
Post #14,052 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 6:52:29 PM Reply	And I _do_ avoid Religion forum for a reason :)
Post #14,007 by Ashton 10/18/01 3:31:43 PM Reply	Japanese 'saving' in context. My understanding is that this habit derives from their precarious existence on a very earthquake-prone island. This fact of nature (we may presume) has not altered much over eons. Ring of Fire and all... Just after their last big quake (Kobe? was it), I recall a Japanese official referring to this 'savings ethic / more' in that context and adding ~ If.. when we experience [~ The Big One] we shall need a trillion dollars +/-, have to cash in our worldwide investments, etc. Believe this corroborates well, your assertion that - the Japanese are (at least special) re their willingness to plan far ahead, and literally 'put money where mouth is'. Here we can see a Fact behind a Supposition: we will need the money we put away.. And yes - plays hell with emulating Murican habits of limitless buying for recreation, the means by which we have allowed Corporations to supplant and now increasingly.. perform the functions of government. Naturally corps use all means of propaganda possible for inducing us all to maintain their power. It is also true that Muricans' former mores waste not want not; save for a rainy day have regularly declined with the growth of mega-Corps: I don't try to memorize the #s, there are so many - but some huge % of Muricans have NO savings at all, live paycheck-paycheck constantly. Many also have a net-worth of 0 or LESS, as consequence of maxed-out credit cards, impulse buying akin to gambling fever. Perhaps many Japanese sense this power-motive.. re "buying stuff for fun" (?) as so apparently - few Muricans do. Perhaps not: survival of natural forces alone -- may explain their reticence to indulge in a massive consumer orgy, especially as "a substitute for real life" ? [/snide assertion of impoverished being] Ashton
Post #14,073 by Simon_Jester 10/18/01 10:21:26 PM Reply	Japanese Highway men (sorta - it's more long term than that) That is all good and well, but it applies to highway robbery as nicely as to temple buildings. I wonder if there are dynasties of highway robbers in Japan. Yakuza
Post #13,983 by Brandioch 10/18/01 1:31:19 PM Reply	Hate No matter how silly the reason. It's been my experience that the people who hate usually have something missing in their lives. Sometimes it is something concrete ("those bastards killed my father"), sometimes it is just a failing in their psyche ("damn Jews run everything so I can't get a decent break"). First off, teach the kids that they're missing something important (envy, jealousy, whatever). Then teach them that they'd have it if it weren't for THOSE OTHERS stopping them.
Post #13,985 by Arkadiy 10/18/01 1:35:11 PM Reply	Re: Hate >>>>>> First off, teach the kids that they're missing something important (envy, jealousy, whatever). Then teach them that they'd have it if it weren't for THOSE OTHERS stopping them. <<<<<<<<< I think the first step is enough most of the time. You need to perform the second only if you want to channel the hate a certain way. If you don't care who gets detested, the object will be picked randomly.
Post #14,014 by Ashton 10/18/01 3:59:46 PM Reply	Song: "You Have to be Carefully Taught" (to Hate) from South Pacific, as I've mentioned before. You HAD to present this song too - if you wanted a license to present this (wildly popular) play. We could minutely disassemble the emotional ingredients of 'pure hatred' I suppose - were we a lot wiser than we are. Obviously every psych, sociology (!) and anthropology course could spend weeks on it. I'll settle for (merely from experience) the song being close enough for government work - to Truth. Kids can "hate mommy" for 13 seconds when she takes away ___ and similar countless examples. As the Jesuits observe, and from hundreds of years experience of intentional inculcation into malleable children: give me a child until age 5, and s/he's ours.. (BTW - aforementioned folk obviously deem it 'moral' to brainwash children, because They of course are teaching Truth, and so.. it isn't really child abuse.) But to carry into a permanent juvenile state (never achieving adulthood or self-knowledge, implicitly) a visceral hatred for Any [thing]: such occurs IMhO only via careful and reinforced inculcation by parents / or one's childhood milieu or both. And ridding oneself of such aberration is akin to deprogramming oneself from: the various sorts of other habits earlier induced by this ~brainwashing technique (religious, political, existential). A.
Post #13,978 by boxley 10/18/01 1:06:49 PM Reply	The chinese will contract a debt for several generations tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"

Welcome to IWETHEY!